Upload
Login or register
Newest
auto-refresh every 1 2 3 5 seconds
Online User List [+] Online: (3): olisaurus, pebar, whoozy, anonymous(1).
asd
#110446 - redandgreen
Reply +1
(03/15/2016) [-]
www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-35814215

Make all schools in the UK Academies!

Except the Chief Inspector of Schools found standards had fallen in Academy schools and found that they were wasting public money.
The Conservatives are going to do it anyway.... maybe because some of them have friends in the education business?
Why do English people vote for them? It's like Turkeys voting for Christmas!

It's also cheaper at the moment for the government to borrow money for things like building schools directly but instead it's going in to private finance initiative deals with banks who will get part of any return .... which costs tax payers more!
It's almost as if they have friends in the banks too!
#110449 to #110446 - anon
Reply +1
(03/15/2016) [-]
nobodies cares you cunt
#110407 - canyou
Reply +2
(03/15/2016) [-]
RUBIO!
RUBIO!
RU-BI-O!
will probably lose
#110408 to #110407 - canyou
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Actually I don't know. It's very possible Kasich and Rubio both win their home states tonight. That would make this election VERY interesting
#110410 to #110408 - Zaxplab
Reply +2
(03/15/2016) [-]
If they didn't win their respective home states, it would be very sad.
#110405 - alimais
Reply +2
(03/15/2016) [-]
The Great Debate
Why — and how — Russia won in Syria


Vladi is a master ruse man

blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2016/03/15/why-and-how-russia-won-in-syria/?utm_source=Facebook
#110423 to #110405 - thumbfortrump
Reply +1
(03/15/2016) [-]
Right. They pulled out because they're incapable of conducting multiple military operations, hence why East Ukraine is calmer and way fewer Russian planes doing shenanigans in the Baltic Sea.
#110425 to #110423 - alimais
Reply +1
(03/15/2016) [-]
What would Russia get/gain from Ukraine? Is there anything useful left?

Also why'd Syrian operations influence old Soviet Bombers flying around in the Baltic Sea?
#110428 to #110425 - thumbfortrump
Reply +1
(03/15/2016) [-]
Because it's expensive. And they have cut down drastically down on fighter jet sorties for the past 8 months. Before the Syrian intervention there were practically incidence every week in the Baltic Sea since October.
We both know what they want in Ukraine, which is a weak Ukraine working as buffer zone to NATO, a Ukraine with weak economic ties to the EU.
#110430 to #110428 - alimais
Reply +1
(03/15/2016) [-]
They take the money for the Syrian op from the training budget, Russia's military is pretty much focused on cost efficiency

www.ibtimes.com/amid-airstrikes-syria-us-officials-admire-russias-cost-effective-military-campaign-2241363

Ukraine has nothing of value left after Crimea got annexed/rejoined Russia and the presence of the separatists fighting or not keeps NATO away while the corruption and poorness keeps the EU away
#110432 to #110430 - thumbfortrump
Reply +1
(03/15/2016) [-]
$ 3 billion is a lot for an already pressured Russian economy. As the source state, it's taken from the annual military budget, meaning that the campaign in Eastern Ukraine and sorties in the Baltic Sea both have been drained.

>Ukraine has nothing of value left after Crimea got annexed/rejoined Russia
That's not what the Russian government is saying, and it's certainly not how it's acting.
The EU is interested in strengthening ties with Ukraine, it's Russia who's keeping them away. May I remind you why the Ukrainian people revolted?
#110441 to #110432 - alimais
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Well it depends on what period of time you are spending that money.

When it comes to Ukraine I like the videos of this former US soldier
www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-NzhHv6AAo
#110442 to #110441 - thumbfortrump
Reply +1
(03/15/2016) [-]
Right Sector has few members compared to Ukraine's total population and only received 1,8% votes nation-wide in the 2014 parliamentary elections. Them having any real influence is just a narrative of the pro-russian medias.
#110444 to #110442 - alimais
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
You don't need many people to terrorize a country and BBC is surely not a pro-russian media outlet

www.youtube.com/results?search_query=bbc+right+sector

Also Right Sector is not the only group like that there.
#110429 to #110428 - thumbfortrump
Reply +1
(03/15/2016) [-]
*Before the Syrian intervention there were practically incidence every week in the Baltic Sea, since October there has been practically none.
#110433 to #110429 - alimais
Reply +1
(03/15/2016) [-]
Some[!] of those are only incidents because NATO has to scramble jets for security reasons if they fly military planes between Kaliningrad let's not forget about the position of good ol Kaliningrad and the rest of Russia through the Baltic Sea.
#110434 to #110433 - thumbfortrump
Reply +1
(03/15/2016) [-]
If they are only flying between Russia and Kaliningrad, why have they invaded Scandinavian airspace multiple times with their transponders off? As long as they stay out of sovereign air space they can do all the flying they want to imo.
#110436 to #110434 - alimais
Reply +1
(03/15/2016) [-]
I even added "[!]" after saying "Some of those" also it's not that hard to get into Scandinavian air space be it a accident or provocation.
#110440 to #110436 - thumbfortrump
Reply +1
(03/15/2016) [-]
Red dots mark some incursions I know of.
#110412 to #110405 - vladi
Reply -1
(03/15/2016) [-]
Also, nice read, thanks for posting.
#110414 to #110412 - alimais
Reply +1
(03/15/2016) [-]
Now thanks to the ceasefire and peacetalks the intervention of Russia made possible, ISIS is being attacked on many fronts and are practically helpless against those attacks

syria.liveuamap.com/en/time/14.03.2016

#110416 to #110414 - vladi
Reply -1
(03/15/2016) [-]
Even more so then now. Really it all started turning (slowly) for them since Kobane. Truly it was their Stalingrad.
#110420 to #110416 - alimais
Reply +1
(03/15/2016) [-]
It's a geopolitical win, showcase of some of their arsenal and caused butthurt on the mainstream media which thought they had figured out the narrative with russia (i.e. russia aggressive, russia wants control over syria, russia will only hurt itself, etc.) then putin pulls out and media is dumbfounded. the narratives they have prepared have become inapplicable.
#110422 to #110420 - vladi
Reply -1
(03/15/2016) [-]
Yes, I too think that's one of the motives. And besides, it helps the ceasefire, which they helped achieve. Thus putting them in a positive light that way too.
#110431 to #110422 - alimais
Reply +1
(03/15/2016) [-]
There are always those Syrian General threads if you take up interest in following conflicts which is somehow quite interesting like watching a tabletop game .

shekelnator is also present ther

You need to login to view this link
#110435 to #110431 - vladi
Reply -1
(03/15/2016) [-]
Thanks man, that seems like a really nice thread thing. But how do I keep up with it? Go on /pol/ every day and look for it?

So far I've only been looking at the live map, which is very informative by itself, and before that the (not so complete) timeline at wikipedia.
#110438 to #110435 - alimais
Reply +1
(03/15/2016) [-]
How to keep up :
> You need to login to view this link
> Press "F3" or spot it right away
>enter "Syria" or "SG"

It's there everyday since I last year, traffic depends on how much is happening
#110439 to #110438 - vladi
Reply -1
(03/15/2016) [-]
YESH THAT THE FOOKING GOOD STUV MANG
#110451 to #110439 - alimais
Reply +1
(03/15/2016) [-]
If there's a big and rapid offensive going on than it easily hits 300 posts a hour.

>pic related, it was the best time on /sg/ when the Aleppo offensive went off to connect two pockets
#110505 to #110451 - vladi
Reply 0
(03/16/2016) [-]
I remember that. It was epic seeing the change on the live map.
#110515 to #110505 - alimais
Reply +1
(03/16/2016) [-]
#110450 to #110439 - alimais
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#110409 to #110405 - vladi
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Yep, and by intervening in Syria, they didn't only make their ally stronger, they've put themselves on the international stage again, after being isolated somewhat over the Crimea annexation. Smart move, smart.
#110383 - pebar ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
should I buy a wall street journal subscription?
#110417 to #110383 - unforgivensoul
Reply +1
(03/15/2016) [-]
If you're interested in investing, sure.
#110415 to #110383 - akkere ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
I've subbed to them on and off over the years. The main perk is the discounts they offer for different books.
You'd probably be more interested in The Economist though, especially because they have an audio-version of their weekly editions (basing this interest on your previous inquiries regarding Amazon's Audible).
www.economist.com/audio-edition
Here's a sample of what you might expect to listen to; not terribly recent, but much of the information in this never gets to any other news source because it's only tangentially related at most to more mainstream events.
www.demonoid.pw/files/details/3331358/008007401664/
Most of these audio logs are very in-depth
#110385 to #110383 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Whatever floats your boat.
#110381 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
How will the economy look with machine learning and increased automation?
#110418 to #110381 - thereasonableperso ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
The rich will be uneffected. The middle class will take a hit but I think recovery would be easy. The real hurt will be laid upon the poor. Most, if not all, minimum wage and low level jobs can be done by machines.
#110411 to #110381 - Shiny
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Automation will render private property (in economic terms) obsolete by effecting eliminating scarcity.

Or kill us all. Maybe.
#110457 to #110411 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
If you believe the future will render private property obsolete, you are stupid.
#110443 to #110411 - redandgreen
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
I don't see how that would be the case. Raw materials would still be scarce it's just the work done to make them in to products would be cheaper.

I think goods would be cheaper but there'd still be scarcity.
#110421 to #110411 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Essentially Marxism.
#110427 to #110421 - youregaylol
Reply +1
(03/15/2016) [-]
Don't jizz your pants now.
#110384 to #110381 - pebar ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
be cautious of the luddite fallacy
#110386 to #110384 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
I think the reduction of labor demand is a good thing. The question just becomes what we do next.
#110445 to #110386 - pebar ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
increases in technology increase the marginal productivity of labor which increases demand for labor

for skilled labor, historically technology has been a complement, not a substitute for labor
#110447 to #110445 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
I may have misused the terms but what I mean is with expanded mechanization less labor is needed.
#110453 to #110447 - pebar ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
to produce the same quantity of goods, sure
but when are people ever satisfied? People will want more goods.
#110454 to #110453 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
That's true. That's a pretty solid argument against mechanization causing unemployment.
#110379 - youregaylol
Reply +4
(03/15/2016) [-]
Bernie bros are SJW's who will flock to hilary after their failed meme candidate and his cult falls apart.

You watch.
#110424 to #110379 - lotengo
Reply +1
(03/15/2016) [-]
That guy is a delusional lib. He still thinks Bernie is going to win it all
#110413 to #110379 - Shiny
Reply +1
(03/15/2016) [-]
"Bernie Bros" is a term made up by feminazis to begin with.

You're like a teenager with aspergers trying to be a Machiavellian prince.
#110426 to #110413 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
I sense a little bitterness in your usual whines.

Is it possible you're a bernie cultist still in the closet?
#110406 to #110379 - canyou
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
They're all meme candidates.
#110388 to #110379 - unforgivensoul
Reply +1
(03/15/2016) [-]
I always knew this too, no matter how much Bernietards hate Hillary, literally 80% of them all will vote for Hillary in the general. Ironic since it undermines their entire point...
#110376 - anon
Reply +1
(03/15/2016) [-]
On the corruption and idiocy of the American right wing You Americas just don't get it!
#110419 to #110376 - joshlol
Reply +2
(03/15/2016) [-]
lol
#110374 - marinepenguin
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#110366 - marinepenguin
Reply +4
(03/15/2016) [-]
Every time I have a conversation with someone who hates Christianity, they always bring up the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition as proof that it's "just as violent and oppressive as Islam".

But this just shows me that:
-You had to find an event that occured before the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire to show that Christianity is bad
-You just admitted to me that you think Islam is violent and oppressive, you bigoted racist scum

I'm an atheistic person who used to hop on the "all religion is bad" train, until I realized that's retarded and unfair. Christianity has done some shit, as have most religions, but to try and say that's it's been just as oppressive as modern day Islam or throughout history is just ignorance of the actual history.

I'm surprised people don't point things out like the Salem Witch trials though.
#110382 to #110366 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
I mean the medieval church was a horrible entity. Not the crusades specifically. That was garden variety imperialism. They were a totalitarian shadow government that made a lot of people's lives miserable with the threat of excommunication and the Spanish Inquisition, not to mention the forced conversion of European pagans. Fortunately the vast majority of the Christian world modernized. I would say the real issue isn't the religion in question but the social development of the countries in question.
#110378 to #110366 - Shiny
Reply +1
(03/15/2016) [-]
Christianity isn't oppressive per se, but like with most religions, rulers of Christian nations never thought twice about doing things decidedly against their churches, or exploiting the churches for political power. Christians didn't need to kill Muslims because Catholics and Protestants were perfectly happy to kill one another. The reason I live in the US is because my ancestors came here to escape anti-Catholic persecution.

It all boils down to politics. Religion is an opiate of the masses, and getting someone hooked on a drug is a powerful way to control them. Modern Islamic violence is a return to 13th century values when decades before, Muslim nations like Iran were beginning to secularize, and even today there are movements like Rojava full of secular, cosmopolitan Muslims. It's the political agenda of wealthy Middle Eastern monarchs that openly endorse and fund highly reactionary religious movements, and the West won't stop them because their economic influence makes them untouchable. The US and UK caused the destabilization of the Muslim world and will never own up to it.

Plus, debating which is "worse" is utterly pointless when people are not dictated by their faiths, even if it might feel intuitive to assume otherwise. It's not like modern Jews are all narcissists that commit usury. In fact I would argue that historically, the political connotations of Islam were just more honest about its actual purpose in society. It's not unfair to have to look before the Eastern Roman Empire for examples when people pretend that secular Muslims today literally do not exist because muh taqiyya.
#110371 to #110366 - schnizel
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
The crusaders were bad, not in the muh killing of muzzies but they were very unorganised and they failed pretty fast.
#110372 to #110371 - marinepenguin
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Yeah they were. The first one was pretty successful, but the rest were pretty disastrous and helped end Byzantium. But the Crusades also arguably helped end the dark ages and increased the flow of ideas from Europe to the outside world, sparking the renaissance.
#110373 to #110372 - schnizel
Reply +1
(03/15/2016) [-]
True, but holy shit was the 4tch crusade retarded.
#110367 to #110366 - cpawsome
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
I simply did not agree with hypocrites in the catholic church and I didn't think it took religion to have good morals.
Tho I'm not really one to have a point here. Just last week I offered up a trade to get revenge on about 50 people for whatever price the devil thought fair.
#110369 to #110367 - marinepenguin
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
I agree, I grew up in a small Catholic community. I've always thought that the Catholic church was holding a lot of modern Christianity back. But even they've been getting better in recent years.
#110368 to #110367 - youregaylol
Reply +1
(03/15/2016) [-]
>Just last week I offered up a trade to get revenge on about 50 people for whatever price the devil thought fair.
#110362 - lotengo
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
This is a live map of all the phonebanks Bernie supporter are calling in.
Considering im not from the US i dont know about your phone plans.
So can anybody tell me, are all those calls from Cali to the states in the middle of the country long distance calls? How expensive is that?
#110365 to #110362 - marinepenguin
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
No, generally I can call anyone in the world without any extra charges. And I'd say 99% of plans are the same when it comes to calling within the US, with maybe some exceptions to Alaska and Hawaii .
#110358 - Zaxplab
Reply +1
(03/15/2016) [-]
/How+the+globalist+oligarchy+kills+trump/funny-pictures/5858150/94

America must be the greatest nation in the world if people feel the urge to wake up and cry about it
#110375 to #110358 - Elk
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Holy cow, his reasoning is retarded. That line about how he hates all Americans is a bit sickening.

I remember this one guy posting in a selfie thread once that said, "I don't hate anything except America." People like that tick me off. I can understand not liking things about different countries, but 1) how can anyone be that bigoted, and 2) why did he even bring that up? It was completely unrelated, rude and retarded.

I know that you didn't ask and don't care, but it reminded me and makes me mad.
#110360 to #110358 - Shiny
Reply +1
(03/15/2016) [-]
>assassination fantasies

You're oppressed and right for it, we get it.
#110359 to #110358 - pebar ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
wasting trillions of dollars on war doesn't make america great
#110361 to #110359 - Zaxplab
Reply +1
(03/15/2016) [-]
Oh?
#110281 - Shiny
Reply +8
(03/15/2016) [-]
#110279 - Elk
Reply +1
(03/15/2016) [-]
Rubio's an idiot. I knew that everybody was stupidly criticizing Trump for the protests, but he's also blaming the supporters. "Yeah, that'll make them like me! I'll just tell them that it's their and their hero's fault!" I've never liked him, and I'm soooo glad that his campaign is collapsing.
#110364 to #110279 - canyou
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
I really don't think he's trying win votes from Trump
#110370 to #110364 - Elk
Reply +1
(03/15/2016) [-]
He's trying to win votes from everybody. That's what politicians do.
#110377 to #110370 - canyou
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Yeah you're right I just don't see trump supporters switching. Especially after they took that oath.
#110245 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
When people complain about something being "too diverse" are they trying to parody tumblrinas complaining about something being "too white" or are they just as stupid as them?
#110258 to #110245 - Shiny
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
All identity politics are basically the same thing in this respect. People project their personal hangups onto others, forcing it as a political discussion.

I've had people in video game chats claim Left 4 Dead 2 was liberal propaganda because two of the four PCs are black....even though the game takes place in the Deep South.
#110394 to #110258 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Are you saying nationalism is just people projecting?
#110249 to #110245 - undeadwill
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
No one complains about something being too diverse, they complain about diversity being pushed, especially when the diversity that they mean is always of race, gender, or what ever group ranks higher on the progressive stack. It is never of people, ideas experience and etc.

The issue is always that diversity is being pushed not that something becomes diverse.
#110344 to #110249 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Generalize. Suppose two stores both hire a diverse staff. One of them is forcing it and the other it just happened. How are they different?
#110345 to #110344 - undeadwill
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Action with intent. the forced nature of it. Which I said you find when you do research.
#110346 to #110345 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
What are a few characteristics to look for?
#110347 to #110346 - undeadwill
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
agenda, rhetoric, persons involved, statements made please try and think about it
#110348 to #110347 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
What kind of agenda? What kind of rhetoric? What kind of persons? What kind of statements?
#110349 to #110348 - undeadwill
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
try to think about it.
#110350 to #110349 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
I'm trying to get your perspective.
#110351 to #110350 - undeadwill
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
My perspective is that feminism and progressive post modernism has done massive damage to philosophy and people while giving little else.
#110352 to #110351 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
What are some of the criteria you use to spot these things?
#110353 to #110352 - undeadwill
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Besides the actions of those who gladly take up this label? Easily.

Feminism is entirely a hate movement with its entire foundation of patriarchy theory being a threat narrative with men as the target.
#110354 to #110353 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Technically only radical feminism is built on patriarchy theory but ok.

So to expand on that idea I'm guessing any narrative built on "oppressors" or such would qualify as forced diversity?
#110355 to #110354 - undeadwill
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
No they all are. From first wave to fourth.

No I've given up trying to explain the surface level shit, I need to show you the source of all these ideas. Such ideas are threat narratives they are the means in which people use to harm others while keeping up the appearance of moral superiority
#110356 to #110355 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Well... no.

Anyways you gave up without really trying. But I'm guessing any sort of "privilege" narrative or maybe social justice in general would fall on your shit list.
#110396 to #110356 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
>Well... no.
Well yes, feminism by definition exists because they believe in patriarchy theory. That's literally why it exists, the two go hand in hand, without one you don't have the other.
#110399 to #110396 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Feminism began with suffragettes. Patriarchy didn't enter the discussion until recently.
#110357 to #110356 - undeadwill
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Prove otherwise.


#110264 to #110249 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
What makes diversity forced?
#110266 to #110264 - undeadwill
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Anything really other than the normal motion of people doing what they think is best.
#110268 to #110266 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
How do you decide when that is.
#110271 to #110268 - undeadwill
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
I don't decide anything.

However you will know it, when there is no agenda interacting when people's normal motion through life.
#110272 to #110271 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
What indicates it though?
#110275 to #110272 - undeadwill
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Agendas. Try and keep up hun.
#110277 to #110275 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
What indicates agendas "hun".
#110278 to #110277 - undeadwill
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Action on the basis of ideology or political action, sugar tits.
#110280 to #110278 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Not the definition. How do you know when that's what someone's doing?
#110283 to #110280 - undeadwill
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
When that is what they do.

It seems self explanatory
#110285 to #110283 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
How do you know that's what they're doing?
#110288 to #110285 - undeadwill
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
When their actions are driven by the agenda*

*See the definition I gave earlier.

But how do you know? You do some fucking research.
#110303 to #110288 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
What criteria do you use?
#110306 to #110303 - undeadwill
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Their actions.

If you like to make a point please make it because I refuse to give you ammo.
#110307 to #110306 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
What actions indicate it?
#110402 to #110307 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
If you're looking for some-kind of definition then be more direct about it. You're being very vague with him and expecting him not to be vague back.
#110404 to #110402 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Asking "What are your criteria. Generalize. Give me an example" is pretty fucking direct m8.
#110339 to #110307 - undeadwill
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Do you have a point if so get to it.
#110340 to #110339 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
I'm trying to figure out what you're talking about.
#110397 to #110340 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Just ask him to give you some real life examples, we know that's what you want.
#110400 to #110397 - theism
0
(03/15/2016) [-]
I'm looking for any kind of definition.
#110343 to #110340 - undeadwill
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
No I'm vague because the actions that can be done are too numerous and thus I am vague to save on time.
#110341 to #110340 - undeadwill
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
really?
#110342 to #110341 - theism
0
(03/15/2016) [-]
It seems like you have a vague category that you use to dismiss things.
#110259 to #110249 - Shiny
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
I have actually heard the latter. It's just not common in old media because these people aren't so common in the Hollywood area.
#110262 to #110259 - undeadwill
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Which was the diversity of ideas?
#110239 - pebar ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
I didn't pay attention to the last election


was it this fucked up last time?
#110290 to #110239 - undeadwill
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Yup
#110292 to #110290 - pebar ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
now I'm getting conflicting answers
#110295 to #110292 - undeadwill
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Actually now that I think about it, it was bad but not this bad.
#110248 to #110239 - akkere ONLINE
Reply +1
(03/15/2016) [-]
No, this election is pretty fresh and exciting. Last election wasn't nearly as intense as far as I remember. I can't even begin to imagine the wonders that will ensue when the nominees are decided and the general election begins.
#110240 to #110239 - valeriya
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Fucked up in which respect?
#110241 to #110240 - pebar ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
so much anger and demagoguery
#110242 to #110241 - valeriya
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
It's easy to be angry. Plus the US population I'm aware this is a sweeping generalization tends to be geared towards being opinionated without necessarily being knowledgeable about a subject. So it's easy to grab emotions rather then to sit down and think of pragmatic feasible solutions to problems. Ironic I know
#110233 - pebar ONLINE
Reply +1
(03/15/2016) [-]
Ep 88  Is Donald Trump Responsible For Violence at His Events Audio I wonder if Shapiro will be even more anti-trump now that he's left Breitbart
#110398 to #110233 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
I think he'll come back around once its Hillary vs Trump.
#110206 - marinepenguin
Reply 0
(03/14/2016) [-]
Government Is it Ever Big Enough
#110196 - theism
Reply -1
(03/14/2016) [-]
Cutting taxes to stimulate the economy is like dumping gas to make the car go faster.
#110296 to #110196 - pebar ONLINE
Reply +2
(03/15/2016) [-]
.......................................................
..................................
.....................................
................... it's called fiscal policy and even keynesians support it
the argument is when people have more money (because it's not being taken by government) then they will spend it

this is one of the supidest things you've said
#110392 to #110296 - unforgivensoul
Reply +1
(03/15/2016) [-]
*stupidest : )
#110297 to #110296 - theism
Reply -1
(03/15/2016) [-]
Clearly you don't understand the analogy.
#110298 to #110297 - pebar ONLINE
Reply +1
(03/15/2016) [-]
clearly you don't understand economics
#110299 to #110298 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
No, you don't get what I'm trying to say. It makes more sense if you think of an airplane instead of a car.
#110300 to #110299 - pebar ONLINE
Reply +1
(03/15/2016) [-]
the economy isn't an airplane
#110301 to #110300 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
No shit. And taxes aren't fuel. It's called an analogy.
#110324 to #110301 - pebar ONLINE
Reply +1
(03/15/2016) [-]
GIF
Based on everything you've said in this thread, your analogy would work so much better if you said space shuttle instead of a car because then they actually do run into a fuel weight problem

>>#110220
#110328 to #110324 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
And then there's, rather than fueling up less designing the car with a larger or smaller fuel tank. You can get into a debate over whether the government should be like a cargo vehicle (i.e high taxes) or a small hybrid (low taxes). The most important thing is to match your spending to your taxation. It makes no sense to spend more than you tax.
#110327 to #110324 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Or an airplane or any kind of freight.
#110329 to #110327 - pebar ONLINE
Reply +1
(03/15/2016) [-]
not so much
Fuel weight is one of the direct barriers of sending a manned mission to mars
#110330 to #110329 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
It's also a factor in commercial transportation.
#110331 to #110330 - pebar ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
commercial transports have the ability to refuel along the way so the analogy breaks down
#110332 to #110331 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
It's trickier for airplanes.
#110333 to #110332 - pebar ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
a 747 is about 35% by mass
a rocket is about 90% fuel by mass

a 747 has a range of 6000 miles before it has to land and refuel, so it can go pretty much anywhere
a rocket has nowhere to refuel. It's not just tricky; it's impossible

a rocket is by far a better anaology
#110334 to #110333 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Technically speaking isn't the important thing that excessive taxes hurt efficiency/functionality?
#110335 to #110334 - pebar ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
yes
#110336 to #110335 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
And the same could be said for fuel for any vehicle right?
#110337 to #110336 - pebar ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
primarily from a cost of fuel perspective, not so much in a weight affecting MPG perspective

based on some quick research, a normal gas tank weighs about 100 pounds
if you cut a cars weight by 100 pounds, you could increase efficiency by maybe 1-2%

so not really, not for cars at least
IDK the effect on planes
#110338 to #110337 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
The amount of fuel in a flight is definitely a factor in planning flights. Personally I think an adjustable model makes more sense as tax rates can be adjusted as needed.
#110302 to #110301 - pebar ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
it's an awful analogy that makes no sense
#110205 to #110196 - marinepenguin
Reply +2
(03/14/2016) [-]
This is a terrible analogy any way you look at it.
#110208 to #110205 - theism
Reply 0
(03/14/2016) [-]
Taxes are fuel for the government to do its job. They put a burden on the economy just like fuel puts on a vehicle by adding weight. Too much tax/fuel and things don't run. Too little and things don't run.
#110305 to #110208 - pebar ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
governments borrow money, not tax, when they want to stimulate it
that's why the national debt exploded in the aftermath of the financial crisis
#110311 to #110305 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
My point was more on the line of Reagan era tax cuts. The government, if it wants to do anything, requires some tax revenue. The Reagan administration felt that by cutting tax rates, taxable incomes would go up, raising revenue. The problem with this is you get diminishing returns and eventually this policy stops working. Just like cutting the amount of fuel carried to reduce the amount of fuel needed for a journey.
#110313 to #110311 - pebar ONLINE
Reply +1
(03/15/2016) [-]
congratulations, you discovered the laffer curve
#110315 to #110313 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Which was essentially my initial point. It's amusing because it baits knee jerk reactions like lulz down there.
#110317 to #110315 - pebar ONLINE
Reply +1
(03/15/2016) [-]
you completely fucked by by calling it "stimulus"
#110318 to #110317 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
When did I say that?
#110319 to #110318 - pebar ONLINE
Reply +1
(03/15/2016) [-]
>>#110196, your original post
#110320 to #110319 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
I was describing policy.
#110321 to #110320 - pebar ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
the therm has an actual meaning, it doesn't just mean funding normal government operations
#110322 to #110321 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Did the Reagan administration cut taxes to increase economic activity or not?
#110323 to #110322 - pebar ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
depends on what taxes you're cutting
#110243 to #110208 - undeadwill
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
"Well I don't know how taxes work so I'll just appeal to moderation"
Yeah because that's not totally stupid.

Also implying the government does fuck all for the economy.
#110287 to #110243 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
So you haven't heard of a public good before?

It says pretty much exactly what you called a fallacy before. So...

I'm not an economist. It would also depend if you're talking sales, income, property.
#110289 to #110287 - undeadwill
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
I don't know, guess? Have I heard of a public good before?

So tell me then if we are past the point of equilibrium, then why is cutting taxes a bad move? (I'm not going to argue about the fallacy because its getting us both no where and that is what you want, to get us nowhere.

Exactly. You aren't and you haven't even begun to research the issues you feel so entitled to have others respect.
#110291 to #110289 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
It seems like you haven't.

IF we're past the point of equilibrium. Who says we are?

So because I can't give an exact answer to a policy question I can't even discuss the concept?
#110304 to #110291 - undeadwill
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Hey pebar have I ever heard of a public good before?

Can you prove that we aren't? (this isn't asking you to prove a negative only that even if I could take the time to show you we are, my dinner is on the stove and I don't want it to boil over and that if I did you wouldn't understand it, nor accept it as anything other than economic shillery)

No just don't expect to be treated with anything but ridicule.
#110309 to #110304 - pebar ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
a public good is something that is
non rival - if I consume it, then you can't consume it
non excludable - there is no realistic way to stop people from consuming it
the classic example is national defense. Whether you want to be or not, whether you support the military or not, you are being defended by it.

if you can exclude it, like barring someone from a building, or there is a finite supply, like any physical good, then it is not a public good.
So even socialized healthcare is not a public good in the economic sense
#110314 to #110309 - undeadwill
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Also your economic insight is always welcome. (Aka thanks for the well put together bit)
#110312 to #110309 - undeadwill
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
But I have heard of it correct?
#110308 to #110304 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
It's actually not relevant to my initial claim whether we are or not. I'm going to leave it to you to figure out why.

So then you're an expert on literally everything you talk about?
#110316 to #110308 - undeadwill
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Hardly.

I'm a philosopher, I am wise in that I know nothing.
#110244 to #110243 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
You seem like a well informed person with valuable opinions. Please escort yourself to not here.
#110246 to #110244 - undeadwill
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Do you fucking know who the fuck I am? Do you know what kind of shit talk like that a noob like you, will get you? I started and finished the funny junk political board cold war as a victor and a little fuck wit who can't even bother yourself with anything less than a metaphor that you think is just so fucking clever could be made with a monkey with a keyboard.

You are wrong, your metaphor doesn't even work and all for the sake of the logical fallacy of "appeal to moderation". (like anyone informed on the issue would fall for it)

So either try to state your case intelligently or fuck off.
#110247 to #110246 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
yfw.

BTW it's not appeal to moderation, you're just an idiot.
#110250 to #110247 - undeadwill
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
"Too much tax/fuel and things don't run. Too little and things don't run."

- You 2016


#110251 to #110250 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
That's not fallacious. That's reality.
#110253 to #110251 - undeadwill
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Then go ahead and tell what is an acceptable tax rate seeing as how the answer clearly isn't to cut taxes.

And while you are at it explain to me the laffer curve?

Or what the government even does for the economy beyond stealing land for under market value, building a road they never repair except for the nice city streets that the politicians and their demographics drive around in?
#110260 to #110253 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Are you an ancap? Because if you are it's pointless to try to talk to you like a reasonable human being.
#110261 to #110260 - undeadwill
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
"Oh I think you are thing I don't like therefore thought terminating clique!"

#110263 to #110261 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
The thing is, if you've allowed yourself to become an ancap there's really no way to communicate with you. Imagine trying to explain differential calculus to the profoundly handicapped. Or trying to talk about politics with the profoundly handicapped.
#110265 to #110263 - undeadwill
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Seems to be the only one here who is politically handicapped is you.

Rather than answer single one of my questions you'd rather focus on what I believe or don't and I'm not going down that road with you, I'm not going to play the game of "well you believe blank philosophy so you are wrong"

What I believe has no relevance to the questions I asked. Some of which were only asked to make you look stupid as you fail to defend your poor excuse for a point.

Also lol at "if you have allowed yourself to be-"
#110267 to #110265 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
You're point consists of accusing me of a fallacy I didn't commit and claiming government is unnecessary. There's really no point in arguing with that because it's self defeating.
#110269 to #110267 - undeadwill
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Correction, you did commit the fallacy.

How about instead you answer my questions from earlier, as I stated some of my questions are Socratic in nature.
#110270 to #110269 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
I really didn't.

And again, claiming the goverment does nothing but steal money and land is self defeating. Are you actually mentally handicapped?
#110274 to #110270 - undeadwill
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
No, answer my questions or please fuck off back to tumblr.

And if it is self defeating then you should have no problem defeating it.
#110276 to #110274 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
"Go back to tumblr" is clear evidence that you have no argument.

Are you familiar with the concept of a public good?
#110286 to #110276 - undeadwill
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
OH HAPPY DAY SHE READ THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE.
Now tell me what does the curve say?

Current times, no more staling what is the best tax rate?

There isn't a difference.
#110282 to #110276 - undeadwill
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Yes, and how "for the greater good" allows people to do fucked up shit, because hey its for everyone else's or someone else's benefit.

So what is a laffer curve?

What is the proper tax rate?

I've made an argument, you just keep declaring yourself the winner, like a child.
#110284 to #110282 - theism
0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Not THE PUBLIC GOOD, A PUBLIC GOOD. Do you know what that term means? I'll give you a hint, there's two main factors to it.

A representation of the relationship between taxable income and tax rate. It's parabolic so it would actually support my initial argument.

Depends on the economic climate.

I never declared myself the winner I just called you an unreasonable person. My opinion hasn't changed.
#110230 to #110208 - kanadetenshi
Reply +1
(03/15/2016) [-]
FYI analogies are meant to simplify a complex point, not to make an argument.
#110225 to #110208 - kanadetenshi
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
That's only depending on the amount of spending the government does. For example if you put too little into a large truck it's obviously not going go last long because it just requires a lot of fuel, but it's also a fact that because it's so large and needs so much ful that it's just really inefficient and too expensive to have. On the other hand when you invest in a smaller car you need far less fuel.

Same goes to government. We can talk about a flat tax or a national consumption tax, but if the US keeps spending like it does it would just mean they'd grow a large deficit, the Bush tax cuts are a good example of this, so tax cuts need to be offset by spending cuts.

Of course the long term effects on tax cuts depend on how people spend their money, but generally giving people their own choice when it comes to purchasing power shows better results than the central planning of government.
#110218 to #110208 - marinepenguin
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
I mean, kinda? It just doesn't fit well. The gas and taxes fit a little, but nothing else really matches up. I like the point you're trying to make though.
#110223 to #110218 - valeriya
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Think of it as not fully filling your tank and placing a fuel canister at a service station along your planned route.
#110219 to #110218 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
I feel like it makes more sense with planes. You try to match the burden of the fuel/taxes with the journey/economy you're trying for.
#110201 to #110196 - Elk
Reply +1
(03/14/2016) [-]
I thumbed you down originally, but I felt bad because you've never done that to me.
#110202 to #110201 - theism
Reply +1
(03/14/2016) [-]
Now you can
#110200 to #110196 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0
(03/14/2016) [-]
...Are you fucking retarded?

Like seriously, literally any layman of economics knows the basic principles of GDP, C + I + G + (X - M). Cutting taxes gives people more money to consume and invest, raising C and I, and since consumers use money much more effectively then a government does per dollar, this stimulates the economy and raises GDP. Literally how on Earth can you be stupid enough to say giving people more money doesn't stimulate the economy?
#110207 to #110200 - valeriya
Reply 0
(03/14/2016) [-]
Rule number one, never assume people know their best interests even economically speaking. Hell ever really.
#110227 to #110207 - kanadetenshi
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
People are stupid, let's elect a couple of those people to rule over us.
#110237 to #110227 - valeriya
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Acting against your interests isn't necessarily a bad thing, well it's a bad thing to you, not to others average income in the UK is about 28,000 after taxes, send their children to state schools, and use the NHS and couldn't afford healthcare otherwise. And yet they voted for a party which is happy to cut education funding. (Read shoot yourself in the foot), Damage the NHS and ruin relations with the doctors union... And ignores corporations and well of individuals avoiding taxes... I don't get people. Yet it's in my interests to vote for them., and I couldn't and wouldn't.
#110252 to #110237 - kanadetenshi
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Maybe because Labour is filled with incompetent idiots that can't advertise themselves. Single Payer Healthcare sucks anyway
#110254 to #110252 - valeriya
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Incompetent how? And I'd agree pr is not a labour strongpoint, but on a lot of issues the conservatives are divided as well. EU for example the big one, how much thatcher was too much thatcher is another, who to keep out of sight is another thing.
#110255 to #110254 - kanadetenshi
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
They haven't been able to properly manage their party since Tony Blair fucked it up, now they just look like headless chickens and it shows in the elections, Tories may have flaws but they only have to not fuck up as badly.
#110257 to #110255 - valeriya
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
What luck you didn't parrot the tory party line. Problem with Tony Blair, is he was pretty much Tory light, to my understanding, a Tory in all but name and it showed, and alienated the membership and unions from the party. I'd say right now they are undergoing a bit of soul searching, parliamentary party is tugging one way, whilst the membership are tugging the other. It's also a lot easier to damage control when your friends own tabloids. *Coughs* Murdoch *Coughs* Easiest way to actually get a decent idea of what's going on in the UK is to read, the independent, the telegraph and guardian.
#110229 to #110227 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Too late.
#110210 to #110207 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0
(03/14/2016) [-]
Not sure how this applies to what I wrote, are you talking about the dumbass who I replied to? Because in that case you are for sure right.
#110222 to #110210 - valeriya
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
"consumers use money much more effectively then a government does per dollar, this stimulates the economy and raises GDP"
Mostly aimed at this, many other factors to consider and cutting taxes isn't necessarily the fix all either, taxes exist to my understanding at least, to cover services which are unprofitable and always will be, or are too good an investment to pass up (I.e lighthouses, defence, education, market retardation) Also the matter of exits (Can't remember the actual term but thing in terms of trade) Goods are a bit of a funny thing, since Chinese goods are everywhere So unless you're buying a service eg repair work even then parts get imported Also the amtter of you can do all the following, cut taxes, reduce interest rates to nothing, devalue currency to make trade better. Hell recently there's been a huge thing in the UK of trying to get UK businesses to export. And people like me still won't budge because confidence isn't there, thing is with taxes compared to exports is, you take money out to put it somewhere else really. Take fuel out the car to put it in later. US Army doesn't pay for itself. Tanks cost money, tanks got to be put together from material, materials got to be mined, and prepared. Then it's got to be maintained, subsidies as well. Think of it as forced investment.
#110228 to #110222 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
What you're basically saying is government has to do somethings which the private sector cannot, I obviously agree with you there. There are basic necessities the government must handle.
#110238 to #110228 - valeriya
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Things are too complicated to be summed up really. That's why that turned into word vomit.
#110203 to #110200 - theism
Reply 0
(03/14/2016) [-]
And p = m*v. So dumping gas WILL make the car go faster. It just becomes a very stupid idea fairly quickly.
#110209 to #110203 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0
(03/14/2016) [-]
...what? Can you elaborate on your point so I can again prove you wrong again.
#110212 to #110209 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
I'm not going to even try to argue with your delusional bullshit.
#110211 to #110209 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Dumping gas will allow a car to go faster. Weight increases the amount of energy required to hit a certain speed. Cutting taxes will stimulate the economy (less than some economists think but if you follow a simple model then it would). But there's a reason you put gas in a car.
#110215 to #110211 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
ohhhh I finally understood your ridicolous analogy, jesus christ is it retarded
#110217 to #110215 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
You probably still don't actually get it.
#110214 to #110211 - unforgivensoul
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#110216 to #110214 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
No you fucking retard. You will (minorly in the short term) stimulate the economy just like hemmoraghing fuel will make your car go faster.
#110221 to #110216 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
Like I'm surprised you didn't think of a) and b), have you ever driven a car?
#110220 to #110216 - unforgivensoul
Reply +2
(03/15/2016) [-]
Now that I finally understood your analogy let me explain why its ridiculously embarrassing.

a) putting less fuel in your car barely, and I mean barely makes you go faster, unlike what taxes do to an economy
b) in real life there is no such thing as too much fuel in your car, maybe you have some-kind of magic car with a a 1 ton fuel capacity
c) there's a moral implication to looking at the government as a car and making it look like throwing away fuel is cutting taxes, it gives a very negative connotation to cutting taxes and what money really does to an economy when left in the hands of the people and not the government.
#110231 to #110220 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
It's like you tried to understand what I wrote but realized it conflicts with your worldview. Thanks for making my point for me.
#110232 to #110231 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
I like how you literally ignored all my arguments. Are you that immature? Just admit you're wrong on this analogy.
#110234 to #110232 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
I didn't ignore your argument. The problems you have are part of the analogy retard.
#110235 to #110234 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
So you're admitting I'm right? Ok.
#110236 to #110235 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
No I'm saying your own argument proves you wrong.
#110293 to #110236 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
How lol?
#110294 to #110293 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
If we consider your claims part of the analogy it supports my point.
#110387 to #110294 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
...What? No it literally supports my point, that your analogy sucks. Wtf are you rambling on about.
#110389 to #110387 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
If we say "There's no such thing as too much gas" or "There's no such thing as too much tax" and "the benefit of cutting gas is almost non existent" or "the benefit of cutting tax is almost non existent" who does that support?
#110390 to #110389 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
>"There's no such thing as too much gas" or "There's no such thing as too much tax"
oh my god are you really fucking this dense, I was pointing out how in one it is true, and for another it isn't. There is no such thing as too much gas, there is very clearly and obviously a point of too much tax, look up the laffer curve.

>"the benefit of cutting gas is almost non existent" or "the benefit of cutting tax is almost non existent"

Same thing, in the car scenario it makes sense. In real life it doesn't, how stupid can you possibly be to actually think cutting taxes has little effect? You do realize taxation is when the government takes part of your money. If the average tax on citizens was 60% and then the government was reformed and it was dropped to 15%, that would have MAJOR effects, rendering your entire analogy stupid. Taxes so obviously have huge effects on an economy because they are literally sucking money away from people.
#110391 to #110390 - theism
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
And you could lug a 50 gallon drum of gas around. That would be excessive.

It depends on the amount cut. If the tax burden is low, cutting it will do very little. Same with fuel in a vehicle.
#110401 to #110391 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
>Now you're changing your argument.
No I'm not, maybe you should provide proof when you say that. It's like you aren't even trying.

>If the barrel is in the car it would count as in the car. It would also be excessive fuel so I'm not really expanding anything.

No it wouldn't. Sticking a bunch of barrels in the car and pretending like that all of the sudden makes sense in your analogy just shows how its wrong. If you really have to stretch this out way past the point you started, it just shows your analogy was bad in the first place. What you're doing is just adding upon your analogy and pretending like that's what you had in mind in the first place, but you didn't since it clearly was not included in your first post. So you're just lying at this point. You should just change it to the space shuttle bud.
#110403 to #110401 - theism
0
(03/15/2016) [-]
You were arguing about the effect of taxes then you started arguing about how taxes aren't fuel. That's just incoherent.

It's a more clear visual than retrofitting a larger gas tank and more indicative of unreasonable behavior.
#110393 to #110391 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0
(03/15/2016) [-]
>And you could lug a 50 gallon drum of gas around. That would be excessive.
That's not in the car though, so that is irrelevant. Expanding your analogy just goes to show how it never made sense in the first place and showed huge ignorance of economics (and even leftists would agree).

>It depends on the amount cut. If the tax burden is low, cutting it will do very little. Same with fuel in a vehicle
You compared fuel to taxes, I explained how that doesn't make sense in general. Trying to show me scenarios where it can is irrelevant, because they don't apply in every scenario and thus aren't a good analogy.
#110395 to #110393 - theism
0
(03/15/2016) [-]
If the barrel is in the car it would count as in the car. It would also be excessive fuel so I'm not really expanding anything.

Now you're changing your argument.
#110191 - PopcornViking
Reply +1
(03/14/2016) [-]
I know facebook comments are retarded
But Ive noticed theres legitimately like no parody

More often than not, the top comment on a post with thousands of more likes than any other comment is going to be something like...
"I found this joke to be really funny - and thats coming from a Muslim"
"I have a lot of respect for the Vikings - and thats coming from a Packers fan"
"That black man did a good thing - and thats coming from a white man"
#110179 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(03/14/2016) [-]
Guys I made a poem, please tell me what you think:

Trump,
You soothe me when I hurt my thumb,
You stroke my hair when I lost my comb
You pick me up when I hit a bump

And though you sometimes seem a grump
And even though they say you're dumb
I'm glad that I can call you chump
Trump, Trump, Trump
#110185 to #110179 - unforgivensoul
Reply +1
(03/14/2016) [-]
I made a poem that's better then yours

Cruz,
You infuse me with passion about worldviews
Though Goldman Sachs make your revenues
I do not confuse you with shampoos
Shampoos kill bacteria, you create news
Though your news confuse me between picking Trump or Cruz
If I pick Trump, I will not forget your interviews
Do not make deals with the establishment, instead refuse
Because if you do Mr. Rato, you will make my decision easy to choose
I will accuse you of misuse of the conservative blues
For the emotion must be used against the elites who screws
The people themselves and the politicians they choose
Mr. Rato I have your back so don't cause a bruise
Or else I'll grill you alive with my many barbecues
#110186 to #110185 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(03/14/2016) [-]
Nice, but you forgot the most important word that rhymes with Cruz
#110187 to #110186 - unforgivensoul
Reply +1
(03/14/2016) [-]
Cruise?
#110192 to #110187 - Zaxplab
Reply 0
(03/14/2016) [-]
Jews!
#110188 to #110187 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(03/14/2016) [-]
wuss
#110189 to #110188 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0
(03/14/2016) [-]
...no it doesn't...
#110183 to #110179 - pebar ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/14/2016) [-]
thumb
comb


I have a very serious pet peeve about half rhymes
#110184 to #110183 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(03/14/2016) [-]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ts-9p3O4TWM

Nigga please, expand your mind